See also: IRC log
<Marsh> Scribe: Tomj
May 26 telcon: approved
May 31 - June 1 FTF: Approved
?* 2004-11-11: Anish to propose additions to the test suite for the purpose of interoperability testing, due 2005-05-12. ?* 2005-03-31: Marsh to take on (or recommend closing) Bijan's AI to produce a component/property table via XSLT, due 2005-05-28. ? 2005-04-21: Pauld to craft, publish Common Schema structures to WG for review for publication as WG Note, due 2005-06-28. ?* 2005-04-22: Amy to provide examples for the advanced section of the primer. Amy to send them to Kevin and test materials to Arthur, due 2005-06-09. (LC61c) ?* 2005-05-12: Glen to add scoping example to primer, due 2005-06-01. ?* 2005-05-19: Umit to provide #none for Primer, due 2005-06-01. DONE [.5] 2005-05-26: Paul to describe LC124 proposal in more detail (where does the attribute go, what's the value for normal Schema validation?), due 2005-05-31. ?* 2005-05-31: Umit to incorporate these three points into new text - 1) it's about the message, dammit, not the operation, 2) it's context-dependent, 3) for the contexts which we define as common, here are the things to be thinking about (unique GEDs, etc), due ?. DONE [.3] 2005-06-01: Jonathan to draw the optionality of the safe attribute to the TAG's attention, due ?. DONE [.4] 2005-06-01: Marsh to warn CG of incoming requirements for async MEP, due ?. ?* 2005-06-01: Glen to formulate concrete async requirement for CG, due ?. Outstanding editorial work: ? 2005-04-28: Arthur to introduce specialized markup for components and properties. ? 2005-06-01: Soap 1.1 binding editors to make MUST and SHOULD lower case in the Note on in-only MEPs [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions [.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html [.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0009.html [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-cg/2005Jun/0000.html [.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jun/0012.html
A few items were completed, several action owners are missing
Editorial AIs: Arthur is making progress.
Jonathan: Week of July 18th may
be the next meeting
... may have to meet by phone
... may meeting in Boston with Sonic, not confirmed. Still up in the air.
Glen: we should be able to handle WSDL.
Jonathan: July 20-21 F2F in Boston hosted by Sonic
<Marsh> ACTION: Hugo to create a registration page. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/09-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
Jonathan: is there anyone who objects to holding the F2F without 60 days notice?
We are very close, but lots to publish (primer, core, adjucts, SOAP 1.1 binding, etc)
Primer actions items need to be done ASAP - this week.
Arthur: service reference section needs to be rewritten per F2F resolution, plus Roberto is going to update the spec
Kevin: traveling week of June 20, have to have primer material in before next week.
<Marsh> ACTION: Arthur to submit errors found in Primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/09-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
Kevin: all members should review the primer, it pretty much done!
<pauld> anticipates adding some of DaveO's ideas on evolution into the section on E&V
Jonathan: If actions get done, we can publish. If not what happens?
<Marsh> ACTION: Arthur to remove service reference from Part 1. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/09-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
Discussion about various action items and how this affect the primer...
Jonathan: lets pull these together and get it done by next week.
Core specification: less that 10 actions items remaining.
Jonathan: Editors any problems getting them done by next week?
Adjuncts spec: in pretty good shape.
SOAP 1.1 binding: everyone should read this over to make sure we are ready to publish
Alternative schema languages: we are just going to publish it as a NOTE.
Jonathan: do we want to do a last call for this note?
We can publish it as a working draft or a last call - telling people it will be a note in a few months.
or we can publish it and be done.
Arthur: Make it a last call so we can get feedback
Any objections? No
Jonathan: all 5 documents will go
to last call.
... 2 editorial items and 1 last call issue stand between us and 0 bugs.
... Do we want to vote on publishing as Last Call next week?
... this means publish in mid-June, finish up Last Call by August.
We can address issues while Last Call is open, so the last day of last call we wont have a ton of issues.
LC132 - schema issues and Arthur fixed them. Any objections to closing ?
No objections LC132 CLOSED.
Paul: proposed a 'mustIgnore'
attribute for the schema in WSDL 2.0
... a receiver could accept XML that matches the schema but ignores additional elements.
... Proposal Option 1: make mustIgnore manditory - WSDL says processorts must ignore extra content.
... Proposal Option 2a) allow syntax on <schema> element that turns mustIgnore on/off.
... Proposal Option 2b) allow syntax on the GED (<element>) that turns mustIgnore on/off.
Paul: 2b only specifies for the message, not individual elements
Glen: Please don't use mustIgnore as a syntax or description, too close to mustUnderstand.
<pauld> happy with 'ignoreUnknowns'
Glen: changing the default
behavior of deailing with Schema is too much
... we can mark the WSDL, not the schema.
Paul: Felt this was an XML Schema 1.0 issue, which is why marking the Schema is good.
<Zakim> dorchard, you wanted to talk about optional vs mandatory nature of the extension
<pauld> heard glen say that schema extensions cannot be marked as required ..
DaveO: prefers a default that the
ignoreUnknowns was on, then you could turn in off.
... thinks it would be a global switch. Prefer a marker that would be wide in scope. Whole WSDL or type level.
... Switch should be the in type section of WSDL
Sanjiva: How will an intermediary handle a thing like this?
DaveO: wouldn't the intermediary have the chunk of Schema or WSDL?
Discussion about how an intermediary would or would not work....
Tomj: Very worried about the tool chain. Would support making this optional and off by default.
<dorchard> Seems to help a lot with the "be liberal in what you accept" in the internet robustness principle
Paul: we don't want the tools not to handle extra content
Arthur: Concerned - how would the Henry Thomson algorithm handle complex schema?
Jonathan: Doesn't matter how complex the schema, it will work.
Arthur: ... doesn't seem like we should point to this algorithm, not sure of the state of it.
<Zakim> dorchard, you wanted to talk about versioning be in virtually every xml schema workshop paper
Paul: if we were to cite it, have to get it vetted
<pauld> get Henry to submit it to the WG
DaveO: Versioning is hot topic,
we should help support it, this is the minimal thing we can
... if the IPR is an issue, we have a W3C process to deal with it.
Sanjiva: Agrees with TomJ, but in a document environment shouldn't be too much problem.
<Zakim> Marsh, you wanted to ask whether we could simply say "we recommend WSDL processors be resilient to extra content in the message."
Sanjiva: Also concerned about IPR.
Jonathan: Can we simply say "we recommend WSDL processors be resilient to extra content in the message."?
Paul: doesn't like that much
<Zakim> dorchard, you wanted to talk about data binding
<pauld> would accept some nice words in the absence of anything concrete ..
DaveO: some data binding tools effectively implements this already, adding the extension helps.
<pauld> making the point that we gave the schema WG the chance to help us here. Either we hit them with a bigger stick or solve it ourselves. My preference is currently to solve this in WSDL.
Jonathan: Stepping up - does WSDL have to deal with this? Does the working group want to continue to discuss this? We have a immediate need to get our spec done
Strawpoll: Do we want to continue to pursue this issue?
<pauld> chad, question: do we close LC124 with no action
<pauld> option: yes: close with no action
<pauld> chad, option: yes: close with no action
<pauld> chad, option yes: close with no action
<pauld> chad, option no: do the right thing!
<pauld> chad, option no: continue discussion
<pauld> vote: no
<Allen> vote: no
<dorchard> vote: no
<charlton> chad charlton votes no
<TonyR> vote: yes
<Marsh> marsh: abstain
<RebeccaB> vote: abstain
<Arthur> vote: yes
<sanjiva> vote: no
<youenn> vote: no
<GlenD> vote: no
<Roberto> vote: abstain
<jjm> vote: no
<Marsh> chad, count
<chad> Question: do we close LC124 with no action
<chad> Option no: continue discussion (7)
<chad> Option yes: close with no action (3)
<chad> 12 voters: Allen (no) , Arthur (yes) , dorchard (no) , GlenD (no) , jjm (no) , pauld (no) , RebeccaB () , Roberto () , sanjiva (no) , Tomj (yes) , TonyR (yes) , youenn (no)
<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.
<chad> Candidate no is elected.
<chad> Winner is option no - continue discussion
<GlenD> next question - schema ext or WSDL ext?
<scribe> ACTION: DaveO to take another stab about rewriting the proposal for LC124 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/09-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
<charlton> chad, hi
TomJ: The spec is as intended.
Jonathan: Then you can't sign it.
Sanjiva: Then don't use RPC style
<sanjiva> <s:Body><doFoo><param1../><param2 ../></doFoo></s:Body>
<sanjiva> We're talking about attributes on param1 and param2 ??
Tomj: If you have an atttribute on the operation name, if we see attributes then we have to pass it along
Jonathan: Well go back and review
this and possibly make a proposal.
... There is some leftover terminology that needs to be removed.
Arthur: This is just editorial - remove the processor reference.
<Marsh> ACTION: Arthur to remove "processor" in Part 1. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/09-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
Jonathan: Next in mail - dynamic
redirection of faults.
... Still 2 places where is says "the faults MUST be delivered.." it should say the default is to deliver..
... Propose to turn this over to the editors.
<Marsh> ACTION: Roberto to look at LC76a (including Dbooth's message) and come back if we shouldn't implement the suggested fixes. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/09-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]
<charlton> Roberto, if you want some help on this for LC76a, I would be glad to assist
Jonathan: we should be able to turn off faults.
out of time, we will queue them up for next week.